To Accept or Not to Accept

[Captain Mike]

Why couldn't JJ make a statement like this? - "we made this film for both Star Trek fans and future Star Trek fans." This guy just keeps putting his foot in his mouth. I will state it again extremely poor choice for director!

Abrams has quotes that come from all sides, depending on who he is talking to. There are plenty of instances where he has said that he made this film for one or the other parties or for all parties involved.

He wants us, trek's current rabid fans, to be there, but the film will be a failure if only we show up.

I see no reason to get offended here. He is a business man, he has to market the movie to as many people as possible.

And he is good at that. Cloverfield was eh, but MI 3 was the best of that franchise. And he has had great success on creating stories on TV.

I don't doubt his talent or potential. And Star Trek isn't real.
It really, really isn't.
There is really no hope of another series or movie in Trek as is.
I would rather have, and in some ways am relieved to have, Trek 2.0 to no Trek at all.

Are you kidding me?!? I just tried to watch MI:III on TBS or TNT the other night for the second time and nearly fell asleep!! NO way in hell is that movie better than I ever will be.

I occasionally post at the Star Trek Online forums. I'm trying to decide whether the canon freaks there or here are worse. It's pretty ugly both places.

Anyway, when canon has apparently become so restrictive that developers can't post a screenshot of an asteroid without certain fans flying off the handle screaming about how canon is violated and this isn't Star Trek, it's time to stop giving a shit. Even if you try to make those people happy, you never will.

That I do believe is called "lazy story telling and imagination. He should have been making me happy. I mean after all might have spent bundles on this movie,... but alas isn't going to see any dimes from me.

And back in the real world, the younger generation will accept Pine as Kirk and Shatner will be "that guy.. off that fruity old show my dad like"

Just as it should be

Who says that? You have a crystal ball?

true!
think of how our actual real life timeline would have been changed without 9/11.
no iraq, no afghanistan, etc, etc. The last 8 years would have been totally different. Maybe the Kelvin has a similar affect.

But either way, I can't believe we have spent 14 pages discussing whether or not to accept this.

Just accept and try to enjoy, after all, it is entertainment.

Alas again entertainment for some but not to others.

Wrong. Pike is the only canon Captain of the Enterprise before Kirk. April is not canon, TAS and TrekLit.
Also in ST III Adm. Morrow said "Enterprise is twenty years old". That number is off for both scenarios, but is closer to NuTrek.
I don't know if the movie will be good of not. I hope so, but I will go to see. I hope others will at least go see it once to see. This movie is our last shot at Trek for a long time.

And some of say it might flop and yet it might not. But I still won't go see it.

^ "Queritor ergo sum: I whine therefore I am". It's what keeps these guys going.

No it's (IMO) flaming posts like that ^ , that keep it going.

 

[urbandk]

Well, if we're gonna be citing Siegel and Shuster in determining a "canon Superman", where do we fit the evil mentalist Superman they had in their little mail order fanzine years before National Periodicals gave them a shot with Action #1?

The fact remains that when Superman started flying in the comics and the newspaper strips, Joe and Jerry were still there. Whether it was their idea or not, they went along with it and had a hand in its implementation.

Dude the only canon Superman as far as I'm concerned is Nietzsche's Übermensch.

"Kirk is dead. Kirk remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become James T. Kirk simply to appear worthy of it?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvHVbLt0J8

 

[urbandk]

And some of say it might flop and yet it might not. But I still won't go see it.

Then I'll go see five more times for you.

 

[Aragorn]

So you won't go see it, yet you'll still have more posts about the movie than those who have combined.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

He should have been making me happy.

Then he'd have probably made me unhappy. Zero sum, dude.

 

[3D Master]

Actually, the prequel-sequel, or is it sequel-prequel comics to the movie, rather establish the future that Nero is from, isn't the real Star Trek's 24th century. In it, there's a supernova that threatens the Romulans, and Spock proposes an artificial black hole/singularity is used eat the nova. (Scientific bullshit, as it'd only make the nova worse, but eh). Anyway, VULCANS must help ROMULANS build this artificial singularity and must first acquire an exotic material to do so.

While over in the real Star Trek 24th century, Romulans power their ships with artificial singularities, are their master, and obviously don't need Vulcans' help to make it, let alone waste their time mining some exotic material first. They create the things all the time as standard operating procedure.

That would rather say, this entire movie is bullshit.

making one that would be big enough to deal with a whatever is a threat to romulus may be far more difficult then creating artificial singularities to power a ship.
and isnt it part of ds9 that the romulans suffered a lot due to the dominion war.

Seeing as a black hole is nothing but an uncontrolled chain reaction of mass and gravity, it would actually be more difficult to create a small, controlled, perpetual singularity, than it would be to unleash a large uncontrolled one.

And whether they suffered matters not; they are still the masters of the singularity, and not the Vulcans/Federation.

 

[Captain Robert April]

So then what about the last few seasons of TNG, the TNG movies, DS9, VOY, ENT... and all those of your beloved canon, which was not made with Roddenberry or his "hand"?

You have me confused with one of those "Star Trek died with GR" types. I'm not quite that dogmatic. I've had plenty of issues with how Berman & Braga ran things, especially by the later stages of Voyager, and definitely when it came to Enterprise, but I at least give them the benefit of the doubt in so far at they tried to stay within the GR's rules and keep things interesting (that they generally failed miserably is another matter).

Despite all the happy talk, these guys aren't even trying. They're taking Star Trek straight into Star Wars territory, with a dollop of Top Gun special sauce. Like I've said previously, I think a lot of this is for legal reasons, thanks to the Solomonesque decision to split the franchise between CBS and Paramount Pictures, but they could make this thing a helluva lot closer to the established timeline than what they're doing.

 

[Australis]

Can I hear a little more about this

Solomonesque decision to split the franchise between CBS and Paramount Pictures

?

I haven't heard about this. Links or quotes are fine.

And no, I'm not being snarky, I genuinely haven't heard.

 

[pookha]

Actually, the prequel-sequel, or is it sequel-prequel comics to the movie, rather establish the future that Nero is from, isn't the real Star Trek's 24th century. In it, there's a supernova that threatens the Romulans, and Spock proposes an artificial black hole/singularity is used eat the nova. (Scientific bullshit, as it'd only make the nova worse, but eh). Anyway, VULCANS must help ROMULANS build this artificial singularity and must first acquire an exotic material to do so.

While over in the real Star Trek 24th century, Romulans power their ships with artificial singularities, are their master, and obviously don't need Vulcans' help to make it, let alone waste their time mining some exotic material first. They create the things all the time as standard operating procedure.

That would rather say, this entire movie is bullshit.

making one that would be big enough to deal with a whatever is a threat to romulus may be far more difficult then creating artificial singularities to power a ship.
and isnt it part of ds9 that the romulans suffered a lot due to the dominion war.

Seeing as a black hole is nothing but an uncontrolled chain reaction of mass and gravity, it would actually be more difficult to create a small, controlled, perpetual singularity, than it would be to unleash a large uncontrolled one.

And whether they suffered matters not; they are still the masters of the singularity, and not the Vulcans/Federation.

just because it wasnt mentioned on screen dosnt mean the vulcans or others within the federation hadnt investigated a similar star drive .
heck maybe they found out it would attract the alien beasties and this is why they didnt go along with it.

.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

So then what about the last few seasons of TNG, the TNG movies, DS9, VOY, ENT... and all those of your beloved canon, which was not made with Roddenberry or his "hand"?

You have me confused with one of those "Star Trek died with GR" types. I'm not quite that dogmatic.

By definition, I've found most of your posts to be dogmatic (certainly being of a strong opinion as fact) and fundamentalist.

 

[M'Sharak]

Can I hear a little more about this

Solomonesque decision to split the franchise between CBS and Paramount Pictures

?

I haven't heard about this. Links or quotes are fine.

And no, I'm not being snarky, I genuinely haven't heard.

This should be good for a brief overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Pictures#CBS_Corporation.2FViacom_split

Basically, as of 2005, CBS owns television Star Trek and Paramount owns movie Star Trek; they're effectively two separate entities.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

In reality the two sets of Batman movies tell essentially the same story. This new Star Trek movie, technically doesn't tell a story that has been told already. So if they can tell the same story twice (Batman 1989 and Batman Begins) and have them both be a success, I don't think this new movie should be too hard to swallow.

Unlike the OP with regard to Star Trek, fans of Batman don't believe Batman is real.

For the sake of 1 or 2 films were erasing star trek TOS to TNG & company...

It occurs to me that this statement right here is proof positive that you believe that the "timeline" depicted in Star Trek is real.

TOS, TNG, and DS9 are not being erased. Honestly, dead serious, if you believe that they are being erased, then you believe that Star Trek is real.

And for all those people who post the old "Its Not REAL" messages along with "get a life!", well right back at you. I know its not real... but thats not to say it isnt important to me!

No, you believe it's real. That's why you believe that the existence of this movie causes TOS, TNG, and DS9 to cease to exist.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In reality the two sets of Batman movies tell essentially the same story. This new Star Trek movie, technically doesn't tell a story that has been told already. So if they can tell the same story twice (Batman 1989 and Batman Begins) and have them both be a success, I don't think this new movie should be too hard to swallow.

Unlike the OP with regard to Star Trek, fans of Batman don't believe Batman is real.

For the sake of 1 or 2 films were erasing star trek TOS to TNG & company...

It occurs to me that this statement right here is proof positive that you believe that the "timeline" depicted in Star Trek is real.

TOS, TNG, and DS9 are not being erased. Honestly, dead serious, if you believe that they are being erased, then you believe that Star Trek is real.

And for all those people who post the old "Its Not REAL" messages along with "get a life!", well right back at you. I know its not real... but thats not to say it isnt important to me!

No, you believe it's real. That's why you believe that the existence of this movie causes TOS, TNG, and DS9 to cease to exist.

Don't tell the writers over in TrekLit. They're expecting to get paid.

 

[Captain Mike]

In reality the two sets of Batman movies tell essentially the same story. This new Star Trek movie, technically doesn't tell a story that has been told already. So if they can tell the same story twice (Batman 1989 and Batman Begins) and have them both be a success, I don't think this new movie should be too hard to swallow.

Unlike the OP with regard to Star Trek, fans of Batman don't believe Batman is real.

For the sake of 1 or 2 films were erasing star trek TOS to TNG & company...

It occurs to me that this statement right here is proof positive that you believe that the "timeline" depicted in Star Trek is real.

TOS, TNG, and DS9 are not being erased. Honestly, dead serious, if you believe that they are being erased, then you believe that Star Trek is real.

And for all those people who post the old "Its Not REAL" messages along with "get a life!", well right back at you. I know its not real... but thats not to say it isnt important to me!

No, you believe it's real. That's why you believe that the existence of this movie causes TOS, TNG, and DS9 to cease to exist.

You know this is another example of you people that want to flame the rest of us who disagree with your opinion and don't or won't go to see this picture. It gets almost as bad as the "living in the parents basement" arguement. Of course it's not real!!! Of course my 40+ years of something I lived and loved won't go away!!! It's an alternate timeline!!!! Well all I can say it's NOT my idea of what they should have done. And I will be so glad that there will be "real" Trek to watch as long as I do have all those DVD's I purchased.

 

[Borgminister]

Your loss.

 

[Captain Mike]

Your loss.

NOT in my perception,...

 

[Borgminister]

Your loss.

NOT in my perception,...

Put it this way, I have my Trek library in its entirety, remember what it meant to me at the age I initially watched, and what it means to me now, and approaching 50, I have another incarnation to look forward to.

And from what I've seen, I don't think I'll be disappointed... But then this swiss-cheese mind doesn't get bogged down in minutiae either.

Ignorance is bliss?

 

[Captain Mike]

Your loss.

NOT in my perception,...

Put it this way, I have my Trek library in its entirety, remember what it meant to me at the age I initially watched, and what it means to me now, and approaching 50, I have another incarnation to look forward to.

And from what I've seen, I don't think I'll be disappointed... But then this swiss-cheese mind doesn't get bogged down in minutiae either.

Ignorance is bliss?

And I am not saying you would be disappointed. The movie hasn't come out yet to make decide wether it will be good or not. But my main reasoning is I was NEVER and have been a fan of his work from Felicity on up.

 

[Borgminister]

NOT in my perception,...

Put it this way, I have my Trek library in its entirety, remember what it meant to me at the age I initially watched, and what it means to me now, and approaching 50, I have another incarnation to look forward to.

And from what I've seen, I don't think I'll be disappointed... But then this swiss-cheese mind doesn't get bogged down in minutiae either.

Ignorance is bliss?

And I am not saying you would be disappointed. The movie hasn't come out yet to make decide wether it will be good or not. But my main reasoning is I was NEVER and have been a fan of his work from Felicity on up.

Keep an open mind is all I can advise..

 

[Amaris]

Your loss.

NOT in my perception,...

Put it this way, I have my Trek library in its entirety, remember what it meant to me at the age I initially watched, and what it means to me now, and approaching 50, I have another incarnation to look forward to.

And from what I've seen, I don't think I'll be disappointed... But then this swiss-cheese mind doesn't get bogged down in minutiae either.

Ignorance is bliss?

Someday, I'm going to sell a yogurt with that tagline.

J.